Amber M. Ortiz v. Solestage, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 14, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-06439
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-06439-JLS-PVC Document 9 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:71 ____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-06439-JLS-PVC Date: September 14, 2022 Title: Amber M. Ortiz v. Solestage, Inc. et al Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Defendant Solestage, Inc. removed the instant action to this Court on September 8, 2022. (See Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) In the complaint filed in state court, attached to the Notice of Removal, Plaintiff states that the “complaint is a sole claim under Unruh [Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.] as the event happened in the state of California and the federal laws are for reference purposes.” (Id. at 11.) “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[T]he district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raise[] the issue or not.” United Invs. Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S at 377. Defendant maintains that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because “this is a civil rights action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” (Notice of Removal at 2.) The determination whether the case “arises under” federal law is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). But Plaintiff only brings claims under the Unruh Act, which makes violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act violations of state law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f); see also Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim is not created just because a violation of federal law is an element of the state law claim.”). ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 Case 2:22-cv-06439-JLS-PVC Document 9 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:72 ____________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:22-cv-06439-JLS-PVC Date: September 14, 2022 Title: Amber M. Ortiz v. Solestage, Inc. et al Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to timely respond will result in the immediate dismissal of this case.

Initials of Preparer: vrv

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2